"Because in order to say something was translated incorrectly one would have to know the language intimately."

Not quite sure you can say that with total authority. For example, I would agree the KJ translators were quite "intimate" with the Greek, yet they could not come to an agreement how to translate the word baptize, so they transliterated it.

The novice automatically thinks "water immersion." (most baptists do not mention emmersion but we hope that happens too).

There is no water in 1 Cor. 12:13.

I'm not schooled in greek, but I can tell that the guys who translated the AV (which I love) in that verse came up with question marks. 'Plunges' would work but maybe not in 1611. Dipped? Immersed? The Holy Spirit doesn't use water to place us into the Body of Christ.

The Apostle Paul writes in Eph 3 there is one baptism. According to 1 Cor. 12:13 there is no water involved.

And I didn't check Scofield either. What's his notes say about 1 Cor. 12:13? Since you quote his prefaces, you must have one.

Artskoe, you are artful at dodging questions that require a scriptural attitude or response. Perhaps you haven't noticed that about yourself....but I have. :shameonyou:

As far as having a Scofield ref. bible....not really...I found an online version of the notes...you can get almost anything, good or bad, on the internet. I also discovered that esword has a version of the notes, which are not as handy to access. Which I will also dump when I am done with this topic.

As far as the ability to translate the Greek or Hebrew and prove that something was mistranslated...the questions stand that you cannot answer, concerning Scofields knowledge of Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic/syriac.--- which you didn't answer.

The questions stands on where did he get a PHd in order to be called Dr. ---which you didn't answer.

Those and many other questions stand, because you cannot answer them honestly either factually or scripturally. And I suspect that will not endear Scofield to any one with discernment as you might suggest. On the contrary, it shows you promote something without being able to prove it or the author to the Scriptures which we are required to do. It is not an option.

Again from my last post, I leave you with these thoughts which you cannot and apparently will not answer although it has been presented in various ways to you in this thread.

Artskoe, we are called to test the fruit---Jesus said that we would know false teachers by their fruit. Part of that fruit is abiding the Word of God, in their lives.

I will make this really smple for you.

It is not about "gossip". I ask you again. It has been presented on other sources, that court records show he had abandoned his wife and two little girls. Court records show the court stated he was unfit as a parent, having abandoned his children and his first wife won the case.

Assuming that is true--yes I know you werent there, and I wasnt there...but then...if that was the criteria nothing could be proven as true except by an eyewitness...and the court records and similar of that time become the eyewitness.

Assuming they are true....including the divorce documentation and timing of it:

Can someone who abandoned their family and did not provide for them, be a leader or teacher of the Scriptures according to the Scriptures? Yes or No.

Can someone who did the above be a pastor of a church, according to the Scriptures? Yes or No.

The fact that you will not answer these questions which are based on Scriptures says much about your desire for the truth. It is to your shame.

I told you I had not officially researched him. Based on what I know with the brief research I have done....Scofield has nothing to offer that I would be interested in. Regardless of when some things took place, that it is omitted in the pro Scofield biographys', the abandoning of his first wife and children, shows a lack of repentance and violation of the Scriptures, that being, doing things honest before others. That he was placed in a place of leadership, having more than one wife, again violates the Scriptures regarding qualifications of a leader.

That those who claim to belong to Jesus Christ omit/avoid/pretend it doesn't matter, are also violating the Scriptures.

We are all sinners saved by grace, and when the qualifications of leadership were put into place in the Scriptures, it was with that knowledge, and knowing that in Christ the qualifications were necessary and the standard is to be upheld so shame is not brought upon the witness of Christ.

There is no excuse to have overturned them--for anyone.

If Scofield had repented, it would have been known publicly, because he would not have hidden his abandoned first wife and children from his information. He would have spoken of God's grace and forgiveness and that He had helped him right that terrible wrong, so God could be glorified through it all. He did not...

1Ti 5:8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

Act 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

It is fully about what the Scriptures have to say...not someone's ideas about what the Scriptures have to say. Especially when they do not line up with the Scriptures. And again, you avoided the questions and possible Scriptures that were asked of you concerning Scofield. We are called to prove all things, not pretend they don't exist because we have chosen to follow a man's teaching.

There is absolutely nothing that can be said in defense of anyone who accepted or promoted him as a pastor, or teacher or his writings, when one views the requirements of someone who is presented as leadership, IN THE Scriptures. Since we cannot be respecters of person's that means it does not matter who promoted him..it was in disobedience to the Scriptures.

Titus 1:6-9 If any be blameless,the husband of one wife , having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. 7. For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; 8. But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate; 9. Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.

1 Thessalonians 5:21-22 21. Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. 22. Abstain from all appearance of evil.

1 Timothy 3:1-11 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 2. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife,vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 3. Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; 4. One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 5. (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) 6. Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7. Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. .

James 2:1-10 My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons. ... 4. Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts? 5. Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him? ... 7. Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called? 8. If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: 9. But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. 10. For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

Vic
SeekGod.ca

3John 1:4 I have no greater joy than to hear that my children walk in truth.
Isaiah 40:31 But they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint.

I have the Old Scofield Reference Bible (1917). Many of our church members use it...I don't believe our pastor does. I don't use it anymore..I am using the Open Bible and Henry Morris' Defender's Study Bible. I stopped using the Scofield mainly because of Scofield's teaching on the gap theory. Now I am reading here on this thread some pretty scary stuff about C.I.Scofield. Wow!

This does not surprise me about DTS. The Romish Church has been infiltrating Protestantism for decades and especially the Seminaries.

Go to this link to read on the Emergent Church and Catholic Mysticism.
ttp://www.bereanbeacon.org/emergentchurch.php

Featured Articles are:
The Hazards unfolded by Emerging Church leaders
The Emerging Church and Catholic Mysticism
Christianity Defaced
Catholic and Emergent Mysticism Infused into Society
Apprentice Walking the Way of Christ
Another Road to Rome
Alan Jones Reimagining Christianity The Way Back To Rome

[mod note: I changed the links in this post - you will have to copy and paste and put in the dot to use, as newbies are not allowed to post hot links ]

“INWARD JOURNEY” ESPOUSED BY RICHARD FOSTER IS A FORM OF DIVINATION
ttp://apprising dot org/2009/06/inward-journey-espoused-by-richard-foster-is-a-form-of-divination/

That's all for now. You are going to have to take some time and read these if you are interested in finding out what is behind this movement which is drawing many Believers into error. Brennan Manning, Rick Warren and the rest of your list is fairly representative, other key figures in the Emergent Church, Contemplative and Christian Mysticism movements are
mentioned. Some Roman Catholic priests are key figures in the Emergent Church movement. Also, corrupted and false Bible versions have watered down God's Word and made the "modern" versions very ecumenical.

The Ecumenical Movement (Counter Reformation still in action) is an attack on many, many fronts, working through many different organizations and movements. In many cases they are unsuspecting pawns due to the fact that God's Word is not their plumb line. They say it is, and these scholars can tell you what all the extra letters behind their names mean and how good they are at ancient Greek and Hebrew, but that does not impress me when what I see in them and their teachings is a basic denial of God's Word in English. Not impressed or intimidated by "scholars."

Unity at all costs, even the cost of the Truth of God's Word, is not the Unity that Jesus Christ is calling us to. Might as well just throw out the KJV Bible and parrot Rodney King.
Sorry folks, forgot to sign the above post.
The following quote is from the latest Critcal Issues Commentary article Richard Foster — Celebration Of Deception Evangelical Mysticism by Bob DeWaay, pastor of Twin City Fellowship and highlights another aspect of a growing rebellion within mainstream evangelicalism against Sola Scriptura.
http://apprising dot org/2009/06/inward-journey-espoused-by-richard-foster-is-a-form-of-divination/

Within DeWaay sends a clear Biblical warning concerning this core teaching of Contemplative Spirituality/Mysticism from Living Spiritual Teacher and Quaker mystic Richard Foster.

Foster’s musings are really rooted in classic mysticism and actually comprise a large part of the faulty foundation of the deformation of the Faith becoming known as Emergence Christianity, now being spread throughout the visible church e.g. by Rob Bell and his friend Peter Rollins.

DeWaay is dead-on-target as he says:

Foster’s “journey inward” is unbiblical and dangerous. I will show [in this article] that most of the spiritual disciplines that he calls “means of grace” are no means of grace at all—but a means of putting oneself under spiritual deception.

The Bible nowhere describes an inward journey to explore the realm of the spirit. God chose to reveal the truth about spiritual reality through His ordained, Spirit-inspired, biblical writers. What is spiritual and not revealed by God is of the occult and, therefore, forbidden. We have discussed this in many articles and have produced DVD seminars on the topic. But the concept of sola scriptura is totally lost on mystics such as Richard Foster. They, like the enthusiasts that Calvin and Luther warned against, believe they can gain valid and useful knowledge of spiritual things through direct, personal inspiration. Foster describes the idea of the disciplines that are the topic of his book: “The classical Disciplines of the spiritual life call us to move beyond surface living into the depths. They invite us to explore the inner caverns of the spiritual realm.” [1]

So Foster has conceptually repudiated sola scriptura on page one to replace it with a journey inward to explore the realm of spirits. Something must have been seriously amiss in evangelicalism already in 1978 to render this book a bestseller! It ought to have been repudiated on the spot. In a footnote to that statement Foster writes, “In one form or another all of the devotional masters have affirmed the necessity of the Disciplines” (Foster: 1). The devotional “masters,” by the way, are mostly Roman Catholics who never were committed to the principle of sola scriptura.

It is not surprising that they looked for spirituality through experimentation. But as an “inner light” Quaker, Foster never was committed to sola scriptura either. Forgetting that the Bible forbids divination, Foster explains what he is after: [W]e must be willing to go down into the recreating silences, into the inner world of contemplation. In their writings, all of the masters of meditation strive to awaken us to the fact that the universe is much larger than we know, that there are vast unexplored inner regions that are just as real as the physical world we know so well. . . . They call us to the adventure, to be pioneers in this frontier of the Spirit. (Foster: 13)

Realizing that his readers would likely take this as an endorsement of Eastern religions, he makes a disclaimer that it is not Transcendental Meditation  or something of that ilk: “Eastern meditation is an attempt to empty the mind; Christian meditation is an attempt to empty the mind in order to fill it” (Foster: 15). But what Foster wishes us to fill our minds with are personal revelations from the spirit realm that we naively are to think are the voice of God. This sort of meditation is not meditating on what God has said, but uses a technique to explore the spirit world. In other words, it is divination. (Critical Issues Commentary, May/June 2009, 1)

Jer 12:5 If thou hast run with the footmen, and they have wearied thee, then how canst thou contend with horses? and if in the land of peace, wherein thou trustedst, they wearied thee, then how wilt thou do in the swelling of Jordan?

Although DeWaay appears to be warning against contemplative spirituality, and his statements can be viewed as not condoning it, I think he sends a mixed message

There has been some controversy over his stand on Rick Warren. DeWaay has been said to agree that Rick's doctrines are "evangelical". However, DeWaay does not think that because Rick's objectives and books do not reflect those doctrines it is not an issue. I would have to disagree that Rick's doctrine are Biblical and wonder how these Christian leaders can support each other when they are blatantly wrong

Richard Foster's emergent is part of Rick Warren's teachings and philosophies so how one can even think to support Warren is goofy, in my opinion. We are told to expose false teachings, not placate them

DeWaay is also a dispensationalist [pre-trib rapture and the salvation of national Israel], which in my opinion skews everything he teaches. Dispensationalism is a flat out denial of the New Covenant

From his statement of faith found on his church's website:

Quote: We believe in the literal fulfillment of Biblical prophecy. We affirm the continued place of national Israel in God’s plan. There will be a literal rapture of the church, great tribulation, followed by the bodily return of Christ to bring judgment upon the nations and salvation to Israel. He will then set up a 1,000 year millennial reign in Jerusalem followed by the final judgment.

Although DeWaay appears to be warning against contemplative spirituality, and his statements can be viewed as not condoning it, I think he sends a mixed message

There has been some controversy over his stand on Rick Warren. DeWaay has been said to agree that Rick's doctrines are "evangelical". However, DeWaay does not think that because Rick's objectives and books do not reflect those doctrines it is not an issue. I would have to disagree that Rick's doctrine are Biblical and wonder how these Christian leaders can support each other when they are blatantly wrong

Richard Foster's emergent is part of Rick Warren's teachings and philosophies so how one can even think to support Warren is goofy, in my opinion. We are told to expose false teachings, not placate them

DeWaay is also a dispensationalist [pre-trib rapture and the salvation of national Israel], which in my opinion skews everything he teaches. Dispensationalism is a flat out denial of the New Covenant

From his statement of faith found on his church's website:

Quote: We believe in the literal fulfillment of Biblical prophecy. We affirm the continued place of national Israel in God’s plan. There will be a literal rapture of the church, great tribulation, followed by the bodily return of Christ to bring judgment upon the nations and salvation to Israel. He will then set up a 1,000 year millennial reign in Jerusalem followed by the final judgment.

Very enlightening material on Bob Dewaay and I agree with you. I came across him a couple of weeks ago and even posted a paper on my blog that he wrote on Mysticism and Perfectionism - Is True Christianity Dead. I thought it was pretty good and did not know this other background about him. I will keep it in mind as I come across more of his papers.

Thanks!

Rick
Iron sharpeneth Iron.

Jer 12:5 If thou hast run with the footmen, and they have wearied thee, then how canst thou contend with horses? and if in the land of peace, wherein thou trustedst, they wearied thee, then how wilt thou do in the swelling of Jordan?

Very enlightening material on Bob Dewaay and I agree with you. I came across him a couple of weeks ago and even posted a paper on my blog that he wrote on Mysticism and Perfectionism - Is True Christianity Dead. I thought it was pretty good and did not know this other background about him. I will keep it in mind as I come across more of his papers.

Thanks!

Rick
Iron sharpeneth Iron.

What I have observed in a constant perusal of writings, is that it is common for authors/theologians to write against something and all the while actually promote it "under the table" dressed differently. This is what happens when people are more interested in their "soapbox" than they are in making sure they are not off in left field themselves.

Perhaps this is why James warns us:

Jam 3:1 My brothers do not be many teachers, knowing that we will receive greater judgment.

I am not against exposing the "works of darkness", but one has to be on the solid Rock, or they will end up slipping off into heresy aka ship wrecking their faith

4. The greatest reigning error of this century is his teaching that promises a millennial kingdom on the earth after Christ returns for his church. (cf. Ro 8:18-23.)

Strefanash:

I am at a complete loss to see how this passage refutes the notions of a millenial reign of the saints aftert the second coming.

As for the millenial reign revelation 20:4 is most clear, . . . those that received not the mark of the beast etc lived and reigned with christ a thousand years. this is the first resurrection.

Try and explain this verse, if you will, without explaining it away

To accuse Scofield of error in this smacks of emotional over reaction. If Scofield is the founding father of dispensationalism, I reject that on the ground that there is only ever one way to be saved, by faith, and none other. thus there were two covenants, (not 7 dispensations)the first covenant being a ministry of death (the Law) to lock us into helplessness (look it up in Romans and Galatians) and thus to make our need manifest. no one was edver saved by law keeping, or by conscience (one of Scofields 7 dispensations)

But to accuse him if error her when he is not in error on this point is the kind of emotional reaction I simply cannot be bothered refuting the more i see emotional reactions presenting themselves as serious theological thought when they are nothing of the sort.

Now I have nothing overly hard against emotional reactions. I am full of them myself , and I bring them to God as the sins they are, to repent of those sins under his grace.

4. The greatest reigning error of this century is his teaching that promises a millennial kingdom on the earth after Christ returns for his church. (cf. Ro 8:18-23.)

Strefanash:

I am at a complete loss to see how this passage refutes the notions of a millenial reign of the saints aftert the second coming.

As they say, a dead clock is right twice a day

I find it interesting that the millennial reign of Christ per Revelations is taken as literal, when most of Rev is viewed as allegorical. We need to think Spiritual, not physical because the rest of the NT does not indicate a "holding pattern" when Christ returns - not to mention Scofield's inaccurate statement concerning the church [pre-trib rapture]

I think people are unnecessarily hung up on this one point to the exclusion of the rest of scripture, in my opinion

The worst part is that Scofield is a false teacher and an ungodly man. That puts his spin on Scripture in a false light, regardless if you agree with a point or two. His expounding is based on a false premise, and therefore; the definition is skewed. That would be like Alister Crowley [satanist] interpreting Scripture

I wil grant that the 4 horses of the apocalypse are symbolic. but symbolic of what? war, conquest, famine and death. and that is where we are heading.

If we hold revelation as allegorical we have to hold Jesus discourse in Matt 24 as allegorical also (wars, rumours of wars, and great tribulation)

I certainly do not hold revelation as allegorical. In fact I regard an allegorical view of rev as a violation of scripture. after all St Paul spoke of the man of sin (clearly the antichrist). Paul also spoke of godlessness waxing mightily in the end days. and this exactly what a literal view of revelation reveals.

My view of God was never a sentimental hearts and flowers view, so that his terrible wrath will fall on man to almost exterminate them is entirely in keeping with the Lord of Israel.

And it, revelation, speaks of hell as the lake of fire exactly as Jesus spoke if it: eternal torment

So what reasons are there to regard revelation as allegorical? that the early church did not like it when it was let speak plainly so it had to be twisted into something palatable?

They did this with the Song of Songs also
SheepWrecked:
We need to think Spiritual, not physical

Stref: I am sorry but this is a false dichotomy, and it is a core of the thinking that lead to the gnostic heresy. I will regard a passage as metaphorical when it says it is (as in "Jesus came to them speaking parables") or when a contradiction is set up with other passages that speak even more plainly by taking the passage in as literal. buti wil think very hard indeed before taking a passage as metaphorical

as for "holding pattern" what holding pattern?

the dead in christ will come to life and reign with him a thousand years then after that comes the second resurrection (AFTER the millenium). deny this passage as literal and the timing of events is off. when is the second resurrection, the ressurectiuon of the damned, if there is no literal millenium? also what about the binding of satan? he is not bound now, as he walks about as a lion seeking who to devour. if there is no literal milenium when if ever wil satan be bound to then be released for a brief time